Ex Parte Nagler

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2015

10928155 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EHUD NAGLER
____________

Appeal 2013-000174
Application 10/928,155
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ehud Nagler (“Appellant”)1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, which are all the pending claims.
See Appeal Br. 4. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Hydro-Industries
Tynat Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2013-000174
Application 10/928,155

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosed invention “relates to water-powered turbine
motors and, in particular, it concerns a domestic water turbine motor with an
outlet buffer reservoir.” Spec. p. 1, ll. 5–7. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
the sole independent claim appealed and is representative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A water-powered turbine motor comprising:
(a) a casing having a bottom drainage opening;
(b) a rotor having a plurality of blades, said rotor
being rotatably mounted within said casing so as to rotate in a
substantially vertical [p]lane;
(c) an output shaft mechanically linked so as to rotate
with said rotor;
(d) an inlet nozzle associated with said casing for
connection to an external source of water, said inlet nozzle
configured for generating a stream of water directed towards
said blades so as to transfer momentum to said rotor, thereby
rotating said rotor;
(e) a reservoir deployed beneath said bottom drainage
opening for receiving water draining from said casing, said
reservoir being permanently and rigidly connected to said
casing; and
(f) a drainage outlet formed in said reservoir for
allowing drainage of water from said reservoir to a remote
drain,
wherein said reservoir has a cross-sectional area greater
than a cross-sectional area of said casing and a cross-sectional
area of said bottom drainage opening being less than the cross-
sectional area of said casing so that said water draining from
said casing into said reservoir does not splash up and interfere
with rotation of said rotor and said casing and said reservoir
together form a unit sealed other than at said inlet nozzle and
said drainage outlet.
Appeal 2013-000174
Application 10/928,155

3
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Desenberg US 983,984 Feb. 14, 1911
Sprague US 2,832,546 Apr. 29, 1958

REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1–4 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Desenberg and
Sprague.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1–4 together. See Appeal
Br. 4–7. We select claim independent 1 as the representative claim to decide
the appeal of the rejection of these claims, with claims 2–4 standing or
falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner found that Desenberg discloses a water-powered
turbine motor substantially as claimed, specifically including a reservoir.
Ans. 2. Next, the Examiner acknowledged that, although “Desenberg
provides a reservoir having a tapering/enlarging cross-sectional area[,] it is
not explicitly greater than the casing’s cross-sectional area.” Ans. 3. The
Examiner also found that Sprague discloses a water-powered turbine with a
reservoir sized relative to the casing as claimed. Ans. 3, 5–6. The Examiner
concluded that, given the teachings of the prior art, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
“to modify the turbine wheel of Desenberg by providing a reservoir having a
Appeal 2013-000174
Application 10/928,155

4
cross-sectional area greater than that of the rotor casing as taught by Sprague
so as to assure prevention of backflow or back pressure from the reservoir to
the rotor casing.” Ans. 3.
At the outset, we note that Appellant’s arguments hinge on the
assertion that Desenberg does not disclose a reservoir. See Appeal Br. 4–7.
However, based on the underlying record before us, we see no persuasive
reason why the identified structure of Desenberg cannot be fairly
characterized as a reservoir under the broadest reasonable interpretation of
this claim term, and Appellant does not present sufficient factual evidence or
technical reasoning to convince us otherwise. In particular, given the
agreed-upon ordinary meaning of “reservoir” as “a part of an apparatus in
which liquid is held” (Ans. 5),2 the structure of Desenberg identified by the
Examiner (namely the boundary adjacent opening l) forms an enclosed area
that would hold at least some liquid, and thereby is encompassed by this
definition of a reservoir. See Ans. 4–5 (citing Desenberg, Figs. 1, 2).
Moreover, even under Appellant’s own assertion that one of ordinary skill in
the art would likely see this identified region as an area “in which undesired
water collects” (Appeal Br. 5), the structure is still encompassed by this
definition of a reservoir.
The Examiner’s factual findings, particularly with respect to
Desenberg disclosing a reservoir, are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence, as discussed briefly supra and as detailed in the Examiner’s

2 See also MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (11th ed.
2003) (same definition), which is consistent with Appellant’s use of this
term in the Specification.
Appeal 2013-000174
Application 10/928,155

5
Answer. See Ans. 3–6. Thus, Appellant’s arguments have not apprised us
of error in the rejection as presented.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–4
falling with claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Desenberg and Sprague for the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer
(see Ans. 2–3) and in light of the thorough responses to Appellant’s
arguments (see Ans. 4–6), as discussed supra.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Desenberg and Sprague.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Ssc